Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his question, the answer to which is contained in our 10-year strategy for early years education, child care and support for parents. That strategy will give parents the flexibility to balance their time between their responsibilities at work and their responsibilities to their children. It is about providing high quality care for all children and providing flexibility for parents, so that parents can put the interests of their children at the heart of everything they do. I look forward to being part of the Government that implements that strategy.

Brian Jenkins: My hon. Friend will be fully aware, as we all are, of employers' concerns that we recruit not only craft apprentices but apprentices who will go on to university and gain higher qualifications. The Government are fully aware, and the White Paper shows it, that we need to give our youngsters the opportunity to experience what occupations industry can offer them. The White Paper is fine and the words are fine, but surely the Minister must realise that it takes more than words—it takes personal commitment from the Government to take on the crusade because otherwise it will founder.

Harriet Harman: I will write to the hon. Lady with a list of the issues that have been considered by the CPS reversed burdens sub-committee. I think that that is the most helpful I way I can answer her question. The CPS issues guidance to all prosecutors on new legislation and on significant court decisions that clarify the law.

Barbara Follett: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of anger management courses in the prevention of re-offending in domestic violence cases.

Harriet Harman: I commend the probation service on its work with perpetrators in general and with perpetrators of domestic violence in particular. It is important to tackle repeat offending and to reduce offending. However, as well as working closely on the issue of perpetrators and reoffending, it is important that we do not assume that domestic violence is perpetrated by people who are victims of their own anger and who cannot control themselves. They often can control their anger at work, with friends, in the pub and with someone who is 6 ft 6 in, but they somehow cannot control their anger when they are behind closed doors with a wife who is only 5 ft 2 in. I am sceptical about some of the philosophies behind anger management, but I know that the work of the probation service, with which my hon. Friend has worked closely in Stevenage, is good indeed.

Timetable

Timing of proceedings and questions to be put

Subsequent stages

Reasons Committee

Miscellaneous

Lady Hermon: The Minister is gracious in taking so many interventions, which I greatly appreciate. On the question of whether any of the 81,000 names go back on the register, will he clarify one particular issue? When the properly registered electors were first included on the register, it was in connection with a particular address. That is part of the identification scheme. If, in the interim, someone moves and subsequently dies at the new address, how can the Minister guarantee that no voting papers will be issued to the original address at which the elector, sadly, no longer resides?

Gregory Campbell: I join other hon. Members in thanking the Minister for the consultation in which he and his colleagues engaged in the lead-up to the Bill.
	The Minister said at the outset that more than 80,000 voters who had been removed from the register because of their failure to return a registration form would be restored to it as a result of the Bill. We will have a new register on 1 April. The political parties receive electoral registers from the electoral officers through the normal process of events, so they are in receipt of the present register. They will receive a new register on 1 April, which will include the 80,000-plus additional names. Will the Minister indicate whether the political parties will get the additional names in a separate document in addition to the new register? I fully understand that we will receive the new register, but many political parties are building up towards the local government elections and want to know whether there will be a separate entity to detail the additional entries as well as the new register.
	I asked the Minister about the research that is required on those who do not return the forms. It not in anyone's interests for the register to decline year on year, but that has been the case for the past three years. I and many others believe that a significant number of the 80,000 people whom we are discussing today are younger people, and several hon. Members have made that point. Research is critical to establish whether that is a fact. Many of us suggest that there is a small proportion of elderly and middle-aged people among the 80,000, but a significant number of people in the 18 to 25 age group. We need to establish whether that is true and then, if necessary, establish why it is the case.
	Setting aside the one-off basis of the Bill, the Minister must find better ongoing ways of getting young people to fill in electoral forms. We must collectively remove our heads from the sand. Younger people by and large do not rush home on a Thursday night to watch the politics show with Andrew Neil and two of our fellow hon. Members. They are just not interested—[Interruption.] Some people might find that difficult to believe, but it is the case. Many things might be on young people's minds, but that politics show is not one of them. How do we encourage young people to get involved in politics and on to the electoral register?

David Lidington: This has been a good debate and I place on the record my appreciation of the constructive way in which the Minister listened to the various points that have been made during our proceedings and gave reassurances that people have rightly sought that the Bill will not lead to any undermining of the measures taken against fraud through the 2002 Act.
	At one stage, when I was listening to two such formidable lawyers as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) engaging in a courteous disagreement over the detailed content of the Bill, it was like being back as a university student. However, our proceedings this afternoon have been characterised by an understanding that the Bill attempts to address a real wrong and a flaw in our democratic arrangements in Northern Ireland while preserving those safeguards against fraud that are vital to the health of our democracy.
	I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for progress on the Government's proposals for a more permanent system of electoral registration to be not only swift, but transparent. We do not want to be in a position again in which Members of whatever party are put under undue pressure to agree to something without sufficient time to consult either outside the House or other Members within Parliament about the likely consequences of the measures on which we are being asked to take decisions. Some lessons could be usefully learned from our experience in dealing with the Bill. I hope that it delivers the successful income that the Minister intends.

Jane Kennedy: As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, those of us who have had the privilege of serving as Ministers in Northern Ireland retain a deep and abiding affection for all affairs relating to the Province, so it was with a degree of disappointment that I missed some of the previous debate. I was attending the construction summit at the QE2 conference centre, where we debated issues to do with health and safety at work—interestingly, the subject of ill health received particular attention.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on securing this debate on a very important issue. I thank her for highlighting the experience of her constituent, and I appreciate that there is interest outside in what is being said here in the Chamber. Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specific case in question—the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) have given us some detail about the experience of the hon. Lady's constituent—I welcome the opportunity speak to the House about the wider implications for Government. If I take a broad approach to replying to the debate, perhaps I can say one or two things about the specific points that the hon. Lady raised, which might offer some reassurance to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West.
	I stress that the issue affects many Departments and I may not have all the answers today, although I have developed an acute interest in the subject through my work as Minister for Work. I will ensure that other colleagues, who may have a responsibility for some issues that the hon. Lady raised, take note of our deliberations.
	We are closer to full employment in Britain today than at any time for a generation, with 2 million more people in work now than in 1997. However, huge challenges remain. We cannot say that genuine full employment has been achieved when nearly one in every 13 of us is out of work and claiming an incapacity benefit. Many have been forced out of work by an illness or a medical condition, as the hon. Lady described. There are therefore 2.7 million people who might be said to be unable to work.
	The United Kingdom loses nearly 39 million working days every year. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that that costs the UK economy approximately £11 billion. Those absences are bad for workers, bad for business and bad for Britain. Managing absences from work due to ill health or disability is therefore critical and we take a keen interest in it. Learning from experience is an important part of Government policy.
	Long-term sickness absence is not inevitable. When employers work in partnership with their employees, aided by the right help and advice, sickness absence can and should be effectively managed. For people with many health conditions, effective and timely advice and support would help them manage their conditions before they became intractable. However, only 3 per cent. of companies have access to or use comprehensive occupational health, safety or return-to-work support. That is disappointing.
	There are examples of organisations' good practice in managing sickness absence and return to work.

Jane Kennedy: I am interested in that suggestion. I shall make a few comments about the Post Office and the experience that has been described. I shall not ignore it—I can say one or two things about it. I shall also give some thought to my hon. Friend's comments.
	I wanted to give one or two examples of good practice simply to show that good work is being done. We want other employers, who perhaps do not use best practice, to learn from that. Rolls Royce introduced a policy whereby any employee who is absent for more than four weeks receives attention. That includes physiotherapy for both work and non-work injuries. The policy has assisted many employees to stay in work or return to work more quickly. At the same time, Rolls-Royce has improved productivity.
	Unfortunately, that approach is far from universal, and a culture can exist whereby long-term sickness absence is accepted as a fact of life. When employers try to do something about it, they and their managers often lack even the necessary skills and support to act effectively.
	If people were provided with appropriate advice and support from their employer or GP at the outset of a spell of sickness, were equipped by the NHS to manage their health problem, and perhaps were pressed by the Department for Work and Pensions, for which I am privileged to work, to address other obstacles and helped to find work, I am sure that current employment and health outcomes could be massively improved. That process often starts with good advice on fitness for work and rehabilitation from the employee's doctor—their GP—which might include the fact that the GP feels strongly that the individual needs more time for rehabilitation. The DWP supports hard-pressed doctors in what we acknowledge is a difficult role by providing guidance, support materials and accredited online training to assist them. We recognise, however, that more needs to be done to help doctors to advise their patients.
	It is also worth remembering that while sickness certificates record the GP's advice to patients about fitness for their usual job, it is the employer's responsibility to determine whether the employee is fit for work and in what capacity. The GP will know their patient well, but will not always be aware of the full details of the workplace situation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West and the hon. Member for Guildford have pressed me on how the apparent injustice that they describe can arise. The only circumstances in which employers are compelled to take account of the health condition of an individual are those resulting from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which affords protection against discrimination for people who are defined as disabled for the purposes of the Act. Under that Act, employers are legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments to aspects of work such as the working conditions or workplace, or to provide specially adapted equipment for people with a disability as covered by the Act. That might include a gradual return to work.

Geoffrey Robinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: My hon. Friend puts it very precisely: that partnership has indeed broken down. There is no doubt about it. The medical evidence suggested that there should be a review—which was refused—and that the employee was not ready to resume full-time work. That evidence was ignored; some Newcastle agreement was invoked, which was absurd, because no one knows anything about it. I have still not found what it is. The man was ordered to return to work full time, and told to sleep on the floor if he felt tired. The whole thing is ridiculous. Perhaps the plans we have for the Post Office will change the situation, but can my hon. Friend not see that the arrangements did break down, and do need investigation and rectification?

Sue Doughty: I am very grateful.
	I too have employed people who have returned to work gradually, and I know that these are delicate circumstances. On the one hand, an employer does not want to force someone to work; on the other hand, the employer has a budget and hopes that the employee will make a full recovery and return to work.
	There is, however, a wider issue, which is why I was keen to bring this matter to the House's attention. There are lessons for employers about getting people back to work—not necessarily those covered by the DDA, but others who have had a lengthy sickness. The main issue in this case is how much better it would have been had the manager concerned taken the advice of the organisation's own doctor, and asked for a review. The ongoing period of several weeks could then have been discussed. The case has a wider implication: I do not want other people in other organisations to be deterred, or to be treated in the way in which my constituent was treated.